A two-sided logistics matching method considering trading psychology and matching effort under a 4PL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a supply chain integrator, a fourth party logistics (4PL) typically does not have its own logistics facilities, so the 4PL needs to match third party logistics (3PLs) and customers to meet customers' logistics service demands. An effective matching method can not only improve the efficiency of 4PL supply chain management, but also establish more long-term and stable cooperative relationships with customers and 3PLs. Therefore, we propose a novel two-sided logistics matching method considering the trading psychology and matching effort of matching subjects under the 4PL. First, based on considering the trading psychology, the concepts of blocking pair and stable matching are redefined. Then, based on the public values and matching effort of customers and 3PLs, the evaluation values of customers and 3PLs are calculated. And the trading possibilities of customers and 3PLs are calculated by considering the fairness threshold. Next, we consider different stable matching demands of customers and 3PLs and develop a bi-objective matching model to maximize the trading possibilities of both customers and 3PLs. Furthermore, the properties of the proposed method are discussed. Finally, a numerical example and comparison analysis are provided to prove the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".